What is the greatest evidence against the theory of evolution...?

[juvenissun]

Correct. Thus fairly clearly demonstrating that intelligence is not the supertrait you think it is. I understand the tendency, really I do,

Glad you agree. The consequence is not the concern, the feature is the concern.
Do we see the improvement of intelligence of animals through evolution?
The answer is no.

 

[juvenissun]

If its an opinion, that' fine. In my opinion, we're better than chimps, too. But so what? Truth isn't dictated by opinion.

So, we are not evolved.

 

[juvenissun]

This is where I put you on ignore. All the time you've been here and you still don't understand.

You don't understand.

 

[juvenissun]

In that case, why do you want to become MORE intelligent?

Because I can use it in eternity.

 

[juvenissun]

Evolution has wiped out more than 90% of all known species.
Evolution doesn't lead. It just lets survivors breed.

It leads. Just look at the fossil record.

 

[juvenissun]

We're not that different from our immediate ancestors, and we're still evolving...

YOU (said you) are not that much different.
I AM very different.

 

[Hieronymus]

Evolution has wiped out more than 90% of all known species.
Evolution doesn't lead. It just lets survivors breed.

That's just natural selection, not evolution.

 

[Hieronymus]

It leads. Just look at the fossil record.

Fossil records shows extinction.

 

[juvenissun]

I think we're odds against. Intelligence comes with costs and risks as well as potential.

Intelligent species or individual HAS advantages. There is no deny about it.

 

[juvenissun]

Fossil records shows extinction.

That is due to external cause. Can't fight it.

 

[Cearbhall]

.*wince* that's arguable. It's also extremely controversial as to whether phenotypical shift in humans can be said to result from NATURAL selection, at least in the developed West. But that's best left to another thread.

Fair enough, I'm not a scientist. I just mean that we're reproducing and we haven't figured out a way to end gene mutation, ergo, evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

Fossil records shows extinction.

It doesn't show what mixture of characteristics past species had?

 

[Chris B]

It leads. Just look at the fossil record.

It doesn't lead.
Look at the fossil record, most especially at all the widespread and branches leading... nowhere.

We are not at the top of a ladder or pyramid except by the most speciesist of perspectives.
(I blame over-simplified school textbooks.)
H. G. Wells. "There is no reason whatever to believe that the order of nature has any greater bias in favour of man than it had in favour of the ichthyosaur or the pterodactyl. "

Evolution means niches get filled, variations, mutations get a chance to prove themselves in existing or changed environments.
But evolution has no goal on mind, no platonic ideal of a living creature to aim at.
("For six hundred million years I work on dinosaurs then along comes this ruddy great rock and blows the lot!")

 

[juvenissun]

It doesn't lead.
Look at the fossil record, most especially at all the widespread and branches leading... nowhere.

It leads to a usually larger and more complicate (i.e. better) life form.

 

[Hieronymus]

It leads to a usually larger and more complicate (i.e. better) life form.

There isn't even a tree, so what are we even talking about?

 

[Hieronymus]

Fair enough, I'm not a scientist. I just mean that we're reproducing and we haven't figured out a way to end gene mutation, ergo, evolution.

Mutations cause devolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

It doesn't lead.
Look at the fossil record, most especially at all the widespread and branches leading... nowhere.

We are not at the top of a ladder or pyramid except by the most speciesist of perspectives.
(I blame over-simplified school textbooks.)

I've always liked this graphic.

 

[Loudmouth]

Mutations cause devolution.

Are we devolved chimps because we have 40 million mutations compared to the chimp genome?

 

[Chris B]

It leads to a usually larger and more complicate (i.e. better) life form.

No, about three times over.
Firstly it usually leads to an extinct life form!

And specialisation can lead to smaller life forms
and simpler life forms.
It depends on the environment.

More complicated is not better if that requires more energy to run, in an environment with low food resources.
(Have you come across the No-eyed Big-eyed Wolf spider of Kaua’i Cave?)

Is it possible that your idea of evolution has been altered (contaminated) by the use (and misuse) of the term in the development of things like cars and computers?

 

[Cearbhall]

Mutations cause devolution.

...? What on Earth would "devolution" be?